classical plurals in English
Mark Israel
have classical plurals not ending in "-ae".
So far I have: anathema, aroma, bema, carcinoma, charisma,
diploma, dogma, drama, edema, enigma, lemma, lymphoma, magma,
melisma, miasma, sarcoma, schema, soma, stigma, stoma, trauma.
All of these have classical plurals in "-ata".
Can you think of any others, especially ones that *don't*
become "-ata", or ones that don't end in "-ma"? Why do all
the above end in "-ma"?
Fowler in _Modern English Usage_ says that the "Greek or
Latin" plural of "octupus" is "octopodes". _The Oxford
Companion to the English Language_ says that the Greek plural
is "octopoda". Who's right?
Fowler says that the plural of "syllabus" is "syllabi".
The _Companion_ says that "syllabi" is (like "octopi") a
"pseudo-classical plural" and a "barbarism", and that the
Greek plural is "sullabontes". What is the logic here, since
"syllabus" is not a classical word at all? Dictionaries
say it's a mediaeval Latin word that arose from a misreading.
Is there really a Greek word "sullabontes"?
mis...@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
Good Friday! Happy oyster, everyone!
Ted Schuerzinger
mis...@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
> I'm compiling a list of English words ending in "-a" that
> have classical plurals not ending in "-ae".
[list of words deleted]
I assume you mean words ending in -consonant-a, because otherwise you
forgot words like pea and boa. (Unless of course the classical plurals
for these are 'peae' and 'boae' respectively.... :-)
Anyhow, what about the word "bra"?
--Ted Schuerzinger
z...@Dartmouth.EDU
This is not the secret message.
WES
>have classical plurals not ending in "-ae".
>
> So far I have: anathema, aroma, bema, carcinoma, charisma,
>diploma, dogma, drama, edema, enigma, lemma, lymphoma, magma,
>melisma, miasma, sarcoma, schema, soma, stigma, stoma, trauma.
>
> All of these have classical plurals in "-ata".
>
> Can you think of any others, especially ones that *don't*
>become "-ata", or ones that don't end in "-ma"? Why do all
>the above end in "-ma"?
All the plurals you mention above come from Greek, not Latin. Latin
plurals ending with "a" are going to be from neuter nouns, e.g.,
"data" from "datum", "media" from "medium".
The reason these nouns mentioned above have their plurals ending in
"ata" is that they are neuter nouns of the Greek third declension
whose stems are characterized by the "at" suffix, e.g., "dogma
(nominative singular), dogmatos (genitive singular, whence one
derives the stem of the noun). The marker of the neuter plural
in the third declension is "a", thus base, plus the suffix "at",
plus the marker of the neuter nominative plural "a" = "dogmata".
These Greek nouns which you have listed almost invariably are
formed from verbs using one of the various stems which the
verb in question has in its tense system. The "ma" according
to Kuhner - Blass (*Grammatik der griechischen Sprache* vol 1 part 2)
says that these nouns indicate the outcome of the action,("ma, G. matos,
welche meistens das Ergebnis der Handlung bedeuten 329, 30 p. 272)
ie., a "drama" is the outcome of acting ("drama"
is formed from the Greek verb "dran" [present infinitive form] which
means "to do".
>
>
> Fowler in _Modern English Usage_ says that the "Greek or
>Latin" plural of "octupus" is "octopodes". _The Oxford
>Companion to the English Language_ says that the Greek plural
>is "octopoda". Who's right?
>
>
> Fowler says that the plural of "syllabus" is "syllabi".
>The _Companion_ says that "syllabi" is (like "octopi") a
>"pseudo-classical plural" and a "barbarism", and that the
>Greek plural is "sullabontes". What is the logic here, since
>"syllabus" is not a classical word at all? Dictionaries
>say it's a mediaeval Latin word that arose from a misreading.
>Is there really a Greek word "sullabontes"?
The answer to this is rather complicated and would take more time
to explain than I have right at the moment. If I get a chance, I'll
respond to this issue.
Walter Spencer
U of I Champaign Urbana
spen...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Rich Alderson
>I'm compiling a list of English words ending in "-a" that have classical
>plurals not ending in "-ae".
>
>So far I have: anathema, aroma, bema, carcinoma, charisma, diploma, dogma,
>drama, edema, enigma, lemma, lymphoma, magma, melisma, miasma, sarcoma,
>schema, soma, stigma, stoma, trauma.
>
>All of these have classical plurals in "-ata".
>
>Can you think of any others, especially ones that *don't* become "-ata", or
>ones that don't end in "-ma"? Why do all the above end in "-ma"?
These are English words borrowed from Classical Greek with Classical Greek
plural formations, rather than English ones.
Specifically, these are all formed with the suffix -ma/-mat-, which forms
neuter action nouns, so of course the plural ends in -a. (This is true of
neuters throughout the Indo-European languages.)
Now, the suffix -ma is derived from Proto-Indo-European *-m.n (where orthogra-
phic <.R> is the syllabic variant of a resonant R = [ m | n | r | l ]). This
neuter-noun formant also appears in Latin, as -men.
(In Greek, *.n > a/_C, an/_V. In Latin, *.n > en; the /e/ may then raise to
/i/ if stressed and word-initial. In Germanic, *.n > *un, as in English un-
(negative prefix), comparable to the Greek "alpha privative" a- or the Latin
in-, all < *#.n (# = word boundary).)
In Indo-European, these were originally n-stems; compare, for example, Latin
agmen/agminis or crimen/criminis. In the history of Greek, neuter n-stems
received a -t-, likely by analogy with -nt- stems such as the present
participle, which would have showed stem variants in -Vnt- and -Cat- depending
on whether there was a vowel or not preceding the *-nt-, a situation which
arises frequently in the neuter.
Thus, in Greek, all -ma neuters come to have stems in -mat-, and there are
therefore no nouns of the kind you request.
--
Rich Alderson You know the sort of thing that you can find in any dictionary
of a strange language, and which so excites the amateur philo-
logists, itching to derive one tongue from another that they
know better: a word that is nearly the same in form and meaning
as the corresponding word in English, or Latin, or Hebrew, or
what not.
--J. R. R. Tolkien,
alde...@cisco.com _The Notion Club Papers_
Rich Alderson
>In article <1993Apr9.2...@csi.uottawa.ca>
>mis...@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>
>> I'm compiling a list of English words ending in "-a" that
>> have classical plurals not ending in "-ae".
>
>[list of words deleted]
>
>I assume you mean words ending in -consonant-a, because otherwise you
>forgot words like pea and boa. (Unless of course the classical plurals
>for these are 'peae' and 'boae' respectively.... :-)
Oh, come now, everyone knows that the classical form of "pea" was "pease", with
singular and plural identical in form. Cf. "pease porridge hot." ;->
Rich Alderson
>All the plurals you mention above come from Greek, not Latin. Latin plurals
>ending with "a" are going to be from neuter nouns, e.g., "data" from "datum",
>"media" from "medium".
Not simply Latin or Greek: *All* Indo-European neuter plurals (well, leaving
aside some other issues in Sanskrit) will end in -a.
>The reason these nouns mentioned above have their plurals ending in "ata" is
>that they are neuter nouns of the Greek third declension whose stems are
>characterized by the "at" suffix, e.g., "dogma (nominative singular), dogmatos
>(genitive singular, whence one derives the stem of the noun). The marker of
>the neuter plural in the third declension is "a", thus base, plus the suffix
>"at", plus the marker of the neuter nominative plural "a" = "dogmata".
And not simply third-declension: o-stem neuters also show plural nominative/
accusative in -a (Latin donum/dona, Greek agathon/agatha).
Peter Moylan
> I'm compiling a list of English words ending in "-a" that
> have classical plurals not ending in "-ae".
Oh no, I can see it coming. Someone is going to mention "data".
Please, please, no more data.
Now that I have that off my chest:
Cobra.
Peter
Jane Philcox
>So far I have: anathema, aroma, bema, carcinoma, charisma, diploma, dogma,
>drama, edema, enigma, lemma, lymphoma, magma, melisma, miasma, sarcoma,
>schema, soma, stigma, stoma, trauma.
>All of these have classical plurals in "-ata".
They may _have_ 'em, but when, pray tell, have you ever heard any of them
_used_, except "schemata", "stigmata", and maybe "traumata"?
Regards, Jane.
--
*******************************************************************************
ABSURDITY: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion
*******************************************************************************
JA...@ukcc.uky.edu
ja...@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jane Philcox) writes:
>
>>So far I have: anathema, aroma, bema, carcinoma, charisma, diploma, dogma,
>>drama, edema, enigma, lemma, lymphoma, magma, melisma, miasma, sarcoma,
>>schema, soma, stigma, stoma, trauma.
>
>>All of these have classical plurals in "-ata".
>
>They may _have_ 'em, but when, pray tell, have you ever heard any of them
>_used_, except "schemata", "stigmata", and maybe "traumata"?
>
as is lemma, and schemata is often used, stomata and diplomata heard from
specialists occasionally. There are many words I have never heard used, but
that doesn't lead me to deny their use by others.